IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=175d5c863=tterriberry@mozilla.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3366C21F85EA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fAqIo2qNLQX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxip2i.isis.unc.edu (mxip2i.isis.unc.edu [152.2.2.193]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F29221F85A8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAMbeJk6sGgRS/2dsb2JhbABTpnWBZIh8wEuGPQSHVZARD4t2
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,235,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="119495598"
Received: from mr1a.isis.unc.edu (HELO smtp.unc.edu) ([172.26.4.82]) by mxip2o.isis.unc.edu with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2011 09:58:28 -0400
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
X-UNC-Auth-IP: 69.181.137.38
Received: from [172.17.0.5] (c-69-181-137-38.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.137.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.unc.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6KDwQ3m013388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:58:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E26DF02.5010202@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:58:26 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101120 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com> <4E25B37D.9080404@skype.net> <4E267750.50101@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E267750.50101@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:58:30 -0000

> Besides, it has been discussed that A/V synch should be maintained
> within a MediaStream. This is something you would lose if you split it
> up and transport it using separate peer conn objects.

Actually, one of the major design goals of the MediaStream API is to 
allow the synchronization of multiple, separate MediaStreams, and I've 
been working with roc to ensure that this is, in fact, relatively 
straightforward to do.

Which is not an argument against a more explicit API for dealing with 
multiplexing (that argument belongs on a different list anyway).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email